By David Closson

Over the weekend, an amendment protecting women’s sports failed to be added to a broader bill, with the vote falling along party lines. This outcome was a rare victory for LGBT activists, who have been largely on the defensive since President Trump took office in January 2025. The fact that every Democratic senator opposed the provision underscores an important reality: while the transgender ideology may be losing ground in the broader culture, it still has strong support within the Democratic Party and among activists. For those committed to upholding biological truth, this situation serves as a reminder that there is still significant work to be done.

Recent developments shed light on how we arrived at this moment. In his second inaugural address, President Trump declared, “As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.” He followed this statement with a series of executive actions establishing a federal policy recognizing only two immutable biological sexes and rejecting the concept of gender identity.

The administration also rescinded a Biden-era policy that had allowed transgender-identifying individuals to serve in the military and issued an executive order prohibiting federal funding or support for the “transition” of minors. In February 2025, the president signed an additional order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which emphasized fairness, safety, and the integrity of women’s athletics.

These actions largely reflect shifting public opinion. Recent polling suggests that a majority of Americans support restrictions on biological males competing in women’s sports. Surveys also indicate a growing skepticism regarding transition procedures for minors, with support for restrictions on these procedures increasing in recent years.

In 2026, there are signs that the culture may be moving away from some of the claims of transgender ideology. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in two cases involving state laws from Idaho and West Virginia that limit participation in women’s sports to biological females. Early reporting indicates that a majority of justices may be sympathetic to the states’ arguments. The court’s decisions in these cases are expected this summer.

Additionally, detransitioner cases have begun to receive greater public attention. In early 2026, a jury awarded a significant judgment in a malpractice case involving a young woman who underwent physiological interventions after being diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Cases like this have contributed to increased scrutiny of gender-related interventions, particularly for minors. Unsurprisingly, within a week of the jury’s decision, major medical associations, including the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, announced they had changed their position on gender-related surgeries for minors. The American Medical Association (AMA) also announced that “surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”

In his State of the Union speech on February 24, President Trump further highlighted the issue by honoring Sage Blair, a 19-year-old woman who has resumed identifying by her biological sex. Blair struggled with gender confusion as a child and was socially transitioned by activist school officials at the age of 14. When she ran away from home, she initially was not returned to her family. Instead, an activist judge placed her in an all-boys state home, where she was subsequently abused.

After telling Blair’s story, the president stated, “Surely we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will. … We must ban it, and we must ban it immediately.” When Democrats declined to stand for Blair, the president remarked, “Nobody stands up, these people are crazy.” Perhaps unintentionally, he gave voice to a moral intuition increasingly shared by many Americans.

Even some progressive leaders have acknowledged political vulnerabilities on this issue. In 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) conceded that allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports raises legitimate fairness concerns. However, he later reaffirmed his broader support for pro-gender identity policies, illustrating the ongoing tension within Democratic leadership.

Meanwhile, several progressive officials have doubled down. New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), for example, has taken action against institutions seeking to limit certain gender-related interventions for minors. Similarly, California officials have pursued legal action against providers who have scaled back such services. These responses demonstrate that, despite shifting public opinion, there is still significant institutional support for transgender ideology.

This ongoing institutional support helps explain why Senate Democrats unanimously opposed the women’s sports amendment. Advocacy groups continue to exert considerable influence within the Democratic Party. Organizations such as Equality PAC and the Human Rights Campaign have invested millions of dollars to support candidates aligned with their priorities and have developed strategic guidance for advancing LGBT policies in upcoming elections.

In short, while the broader culture appears to be reassessing aspects of transgender ideology, the political landscape has not yet caught up. Despite evidence that the issue resonates with voters, many Democratic leaders remain aligned with activist positions.

For Christians, however, the issue of gender identity ultimately transcends politics. It touches on fundamental questions about human nature, embodiment, and God’s design. The Bible teaches that human beings are created male and female — a truth that has long been affirmed by the church.

The Southern Baptist Convention articulated this conviction with remarkable clarity as early as 2014, well before these issues were a widespread topic of discussion. In that resolution, Southern Baptists affirmed that a person’s identity is determined by biological sex, not subjective self-perception. In many ways, this statement proved to be ahead of its time. Even over a decade later, it still accurately reflects how Christians should understand these issues.

As debates over transgender ideology continue, Christians must engage thoughtfully and faithfully, articulating both the truth and the goodness of God’s design. While cultural trends may shift and political winds may change, the foundational truths of God’s word remain constant (Isaiah 40:8).

David Closson is Director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council.

This article originally appeared here.